Tell us what independence would really mean for Scottish architects

No one disputes there are ideological differences either side of Hadrian’s Wall, writes Will Hurst

The news that a group of architects has formed a dedicated lobby in favour of Scottish independence is an intriguing development. Up until now, architects in Scotland have mainly kept their views on this vital political question under wraps, although debate - as the AJ has noted - has been simmering under the surface. The launch of the ‘Architects for Yes’ campaign in Edinburgh last week looks set to change all that and bring the profession’s arguments to the boil.

The group’s manifesto says independence will create the opportunity to create ‘a built environment considered not as a commodity to be bought and sold for excessive profit, but one that is responsive to the country’s aspirations towards a more equal and democratic society’.

These are fine and no doubt sincere words, but the referendum represents a once-in-a-lifetime vote and many of the group’s arguments seem to be part of a backlash against a Tory-led coalition in Westminster that has only been in power since 2010.

Malcolm Fraser, one of the leaders of the group, provocatively told the AJ this week: ‘I don’t want to over-emphasise differences or get misty-eyed, but I do think we [in Scotland] care a bit more for people and less to demonise the poor and the disadvantaged.’

No one disputes there are ideological differences either side of Hadrian’s Wall - Scotland currently boasts only one Conservative MP, for example - but Fraser’s claim will not win him many friends.

While he has since clarified that he does not believe the Scots are intrinsically more caring than the English, the claim also smacks architects in a particularly sensitive area, because it addresses what many view as their vocational calling: their desire to change the world for the better.

But if ‘Architects for Yes’ is to be believed, independence truly is a win-win scenario for the profession because it will benefit not only the poor and needy but also that other marginalised band of people on the fringes of society - architects themselves.

The group says a self-governing Scotland holds ‘huge opportunities’ for architects, while its Facebook page (currently boasting 291 ‘likes’) contains a revealing post by a supporter named Andrew Bennett.

‘I am tired of successive Westminster governments systematically destroying the architecture profession,’ Bennett writes. ‘We should be on a par with lawyers, accountants, doctors, but we are not. We are kicked, ridiculed, beaten, insulted and poorly paid for what we actually do. This will never change unless we can enact a change.

‘I would like to see the profession treated fairly and given the respect it deserves. I would like to see a note within a new Scottish Constitution that defines architecture and the importance it plays in all our lives.’

Bennett does have the sense to note that this is a ‘selfish’ reason to vote yes but the post nevertheless sits oddly with Fraser’s high-minded arguments. What they arguably share in common is a harking-back to a bygone era where the state enabled architects to wield power.

What Architects for Yes fails to explain is why and how an independent Scotland would deliver this.

Ahead of next month’s referendum on Scottish independence, the AJ will be producing a special issue on 12 September which will include the results of a survey of our readers which you can take part in here: TheAJ.co.uk/Scotland.

Readers' comments
(3)

An independent Scottish government will be able to deliver a better public building and housing programme as it has full control of public finance. The Yes campaign has identifed areas of current spending that will be cut enabling higher spends elsewhere, Trident particularly comes to mind in this respect.

As Malcolm Fraser states the people who live in Scotland are of a less Conservative mind and more willing to support society as a whole rather than an elite. As an independent country it will be possible to look again at the standing of the architectural profession and at public procurement methods that have been driven by the desires of Westminster to feed big businesses.

There is no better case for voting YES than that it might end once and for all the patronising and insidious tone in pieces like this with its no doubt no doubt sincere prejudices.

Journalists like Hurst are all honourable men, no doubt. The pontificating that Malcom Fraser will not win many friends is as valuable and sincere a thought as the honourable belief that a campaign can be judged by any random post attached by reader.

The sincere and honourable husband is left sitting on the bed scratching his wise and knowing head as the wife finishes packing her case. Yes, I can and I am leaving you, he hears as his unbelief looks at the shutting door.

Will, I believe you have intentionally missed the point I was making for the purposes of promoting your own agenda within this article. My 'selfish' reason was one of many for voting yes. The remainder had nothing to do with architecture so I chose to leave out. My view was echoed by others at the gathering who may have chosen not to print their thoughts. I may not be a 'name' like Malcolm, but I stood their, shoulder to shoulder, in the rain. Each persons point is valid, you just may not want to listen to it.

Subscribe to the AJ

The Architects’ Journal is the UK’s best-selling weekly architecture magazine and is the voice of architecture in Britain

About the Architects' Journal

The Architects' Journal is the voice of architecture in Britain. We sit at the heart of the debate about British architecture and British cities, and form opinions across the whole construction industry on design-related matters